It is a painful thought, but true: The natural study of
Sherlockians being Sherlock, matters in the life of Dr. John H. Watson
sometimes get second billing.

Mais non! the Sherlockian given to French
phrases will cry, weve paid plenty of attention to Watson:
his wounds, his marriages, his middle name . . .

Yet, what, I have to then ask, of his birthday?

The birthday of Sherlock Holmes is celebrated every year
by the largest annual Sherlockian function we have, the Baker Street
Irregulars weekend. The arguments for Holmess January 6th birthday
are legendary: the references to Twelfth Night, the untasted
breakfast from the opening to The Valley of Fear  a hangover
from the previous nights birthday celebrations. Despite arguments
for other birthdates, that January 6th date remains the sort of thing
wed put into a primer for novice Sherlockians . . . one of the
basic, most-cherished conclusions of Sherlockian scholarship.

But what of Watsons birthday? Anyone happen to remember
the date? Any guesses?

In his pamphlet, Watsoniana, Elliot Kimball placed Watsons
birthday on July 7, 1852. (Of course, he also claimed that Watsons
middle name was Hubert.) In his Annotated Sherlock Holmes,
William S. Baring-Gould states that several commentators place Watsons
birth on July 7th, based on the fact that Watson took Beaune with lunch
to celebrate. It is a horrible date for any Sherlockian to contemplate
celebrating . . . Watsons literary agent died on that same day
in 1930, and I dont think it was because he overdid it at Watsons
birthday party. Perhaps Baring-Gould realized this, as in his Sherlock
Holmes of Baker Street, Baring-Gould cites August 7th as Watsons
birthday. Later compilers, like Matthew Bunson in his Encyclopaedia
Sherlockiana, uncomplainingly follow those two leads, but I have
to wonder: Cant we do better?

Now, we all know that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were
both fairly young fellows in the 1880s. So why does Holmes get to celebrate
to the point of hangover on his birthday, while Watson settles for a
little wine at lunch when hes not yet the sedate married man?
Who do we think Holmes was partying with to get his hangover? Would
we deny Watson the sort of wild birthday that requires one to suffer
a bit the morning after? Of course not!

Using the time-honored hangover system of dating birthdays,
I would, therefore, like to propose the opening of The Speckled
Band for the morning after Watsons birthday bash. In that
April morning of 1883, Holmes awakens a slightly resentful Watson at
7:15 a.m., the doctor being a bit put out as he fully expected Holmes
to sleep in. Daylight, according to Violet Stoner, came well before
six that morning, so 7:15 is hardly an ungodly hour to be wakened .
. . unless, of course, one had a rough night before.

As to the exact date of this hangover . . . the clues
are fairly plain: Early in April in 1893 and a day when
the workmen were not at their task of repairing Stoke Moran (Sunday,
the traditional day off). The earliest Sunday in April of 1893 falls
on the first of the month, and there, as Nathan Bengis once wrote in
the quest for Holmess birthday, is a day to conjure with.

Step back in time with me to with me to March 31, 1853.
Mama Watson goes into labor in the evening, and its not a particularly
easy labor. Giving birth to legends is never easy, and in the course
of things, the household loses all track of time. Once the delivery
is over and the child is born, more time passes while the health of
mother and child looked after. When all is said and done, no one is
exactly sure if young John H. Watson was born before midnight on March
31 or in the wee morning hours of April 1. Like their son, the Watsons
were never very good with dates  its genetic, you see.

But April 1 is All Fools Day! one of
his parents protests. We cant have our son growing up thinking
hes a brainless fool.

So it is decided that March 31, 1853 will be little John
H. Watsons official birthday. Whether or not hes a fool
will be left to time and destiny . . . and Hollywood moviemakers. But
our story doesnt end there, of course. Thirty years later, John
H. Watson is celebrating his thirtieth birthday on March 31, 1883. It
isnt a particularly happy time for him . . . he has yet to marry,
hes still suffering the physical after-effects of his short-lived
military career, and he has neither the money nor energy to start his
own practice. Like most people passing a milestone birthday, Watson
questions his life thus far: What has he accomplished? What does he
have to show for his existence on planet Earth? And hes not happy
with the answers hes come up with when he finally goes to bed
that night.

But the next morning is not just any April Fools
Day  this time its Grimesby Roylotts Day. Unknown
to good old Watson as he celebrates his birthday on that final night
in March, a particularly imaginative murdering step-father is trying
to do in his step-daughter with a particularly rare snake. As Watson
would later write:

On glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases
in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my
friend Sherlock Holmes. . . . Of all these varied cases, however, I
cannot recall any which presented more singular features than that which
was associated with the well-known Surrey family of the Roylotts of
Stoke Moran.

Since Dr. Watson did not start seriously writing and publishing
Holmess cases en masse until after his friends death
at Reichenbach Falls, we can take his words the last eight years
to be the eight year span between Speckled Band in April
1893 and Final Problem in May 1891. That span of years would
seem to completely ignore A Study in Scarlet, which most Sherlockian
scholars think took place in 1881. The reason they think it took place
in 1881? Because the timing of Watsons military career works out
that way . . . Watson and Holmes met and started sharing rooms in 1881.
It is only when one looks closely at the investigation leading to the
capture of Jefferson Hope, the actual detective case of Study, that
one notices the matter might not have occurred in 1881 at all.

The events of the Drebber/Stangerson/Hope case begin on
Tuesday, March 4. The only problem is that March 4 was not on a Tuesday
in 1881. Or 1882. Or 1883. It is not until 1884, the year after Speckled
Band, that March 4 appears on a Tuesday. Watson lets an indeterminate
amount of time elapse in the narrative between telling of his inital
meeting/moving in with Holmes and the investigation of the Brixton Road
murder, a quite purposeful move on his part, done to cover the other
cases that came between his meeting Holmes and the matter he called
A Study in Scarlet. And it was most especially done to cover up
that fascinating matter that made him first consider writing up Holmess
cases for the public . . . the case that would later be known as The
Speckled Band.

I cannot recall any which presented more singular
features, Watson writes of the case which occurred a full four
years before he published A Study in Scarlet. So why didnt
he put his best foot forward and publish the more interesting case first?
He tells us himself: It is possible that I might have placed them
upon record before, but a promise of secrecy was made at the time, from
which I have only been freed during the last month by the untimely death
of the lady to whom the pledge was given.

In 1883, years before Watson would send A Study in
Scarlet to the publisher, Dr. Watson was promising Violet Stoner
that he wouldnt write up her tale until after her death. Why should
he promise her that, if he hadnt written or published any of Holmess
cases prior to 1893? Unless The Speckled Band was the case
that originally inspired him to think that there might be literary value
in these investigations of Sherlock Holmes. Unless it was such a remarkable
adventure that he asked Miss Stoner if he could write it up as soon
as it was over.

She asked him not to, of course, and taking her words
to heart, Watson would not write up another of his cases with Holmes
until he came across A Study in Scarlet in 1894 . . . a case
in which all of the major non-investigating players were dead by the
time the tale is done. No one to refuse permission on that one; the
Scotland Yard men involved were written up in newspapers every day.

Thus we find that not only was John H. Watson, M.D. born
on March 31, 1853, the Sherlockian Canon itself was truly born on April
1, 1883. Just as he turned thirty, Dr. Watson finally found his lifes
calling,, documenting the cases of Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective.
He apparently kept in touch with Helen Stoner-Armitage after that time,
and her husband Percy undoubtedly was the one who let Watson know of
his wifes all-too-early demise, probably thanking Watson for his
part in saving her life, so that Percy could have what precious years
that he did have with her. And though Watson could no longer publish
The Speckled Band as the first tale of the Sherlockian Canon,
he could subtly honor Helen Armitages tale by making it number
ten. But why, you ask, why did he allow us to go on thinking A Study
in Scarlet came first?

Because it isnt fools that are born on April first
(or the eve before) . . . but the pawky-humored pranksters that make
fools of the rest of us.